State Of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home Lko v. Ranjit Yadav And

1. Heard Ms. Shikha Sinha, the learned AGA appearing for the State.

2. This is an application filed by the State of U.P. seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act (II)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ayodhya in Spl. Session Trial No.176 of 2018 arising out of 305 of 2017 under Sections 354 IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5)(A) of SC/ST Act registered at Police Station- Kotwali Bikapur, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons- Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to the appeal.

3. While deciding the issue as to whether the accused persons had molested the minor victim and had committed sexual assault on her, the trial Court referred to the statements of the informant (PW-1) and the victim (PW-2).

4. The informant, who is uncle of the victim, stated that on the date of the incident the victim was alone in her house, he was there to guard the house of the victim, the victim had gone out alone to attend the call of nature but he had not seen the victim going out of the house as he was asleep, he had gone running to the victim upon hearing the hue and cry raised by her, the opposite party No.2- Rinkesh Yadav was present there in a field of churry and no other person was present there. Besides him, Raman Manohar had also ran towards the place of the incident. Several other persons were present there but she does not know their names. He had dialed 100, police had come and taken away Rinkesh (the opposite party No.2).

5. The victim (PW-2) stated that in the night of the incident, her sister and two younger brothers were present in her house, all of them had their meals at 2 A378D No. 139 of 2025 about 7:00 PM, her siblings went to sleep and she was awake. She had gone to a field, two boys were coming on foot along with a bicycle, she stood up, both of them asked her about the way to the house of Arjun, she stated that she cannot tell the way and they should ask someone else whereupon both the boys molested her, beat her up and abused her.

6. During cross-examination, the victim stated that she had sat for attending the call of nature at a place that is about 40-50 steps away from the chak road, both the accused persons had come to her to ask the way to the house of Arjun, it was a dark night and she could not see their faces. The accused person had beaten her and she had suffered injuries on the entire body.

7. The trial Court held that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had alleged that the accused persons had caught hold of her hands, gagged her mouth with a cloth and pressed her breast whereas this allegation has not been leveled during her examination before the trial Court. The allegation of shouting while her mouth was gagged with a cloth, is unbelievable. There is no allegation of penetrative sexual assault and, therefore, no offence under Section 8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act is made out. There is no allegation that the offence was committed because of the caste of the victim and, therefore, no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out.

8. The trial Court has held that prosecution has failed to establish the allegations against the accused persons.

9. The learned AGA has submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has categorically levelled the allegation of sexual assault.

10. A bare perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that the trial Court has referred to the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and has held that the allegations leveled in that statement have not been leveled in the statement of the victim recorded before the trial Court. When the victim has refrained from leveling the allegations contained in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. would lose significance.

11. One of the grounds taken in the appeal is that the trial Court has disbelieved the version of the victim because there was no independent witness whereas the law is that conviction can be based on the solitary statement of the victim even in absence of any independent witness. This submission is misconceived as the trial Court has not disbelieved the prosecution case on the ground of absence of any independent witness rather has disbelieved it on the ground of discrepancies in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and before the trial Court as also the discrepancies in the statement of the victim and the informant. 3 A378D No. 139 of 2025

12. The trial Court has discussed the entire relevant material available on record and the learned AGA could not make out any perversity in the judgment of the trial Court.

13. In these circumstances, there is no good ground to grant leave to the State to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act (II)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ayodhya.

14. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to file appeal is hereby rejected. (Order on delay condonation application)

1. As this Court has rejected the application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act (II)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ayodhya, there is no occasion for issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

2. Let the delay condonation application be consigned to records. (Order on Appeal)

1. As this Court has rejected the application seeking leave to file Appeal, let the appeal be consigned to records. September 24, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

1. Heard Ms. Shikha Sinha, the learned AGA appearing for the State.

2. This is an application filed by the State of U.P. seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act (II)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ayodhya in Spl. Session Trial No.176 of 2018 arising out of 305 of 2017 under Sections 354 IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5)(A) of SC/ST Act registered at Police Station- Kotwali Bikapur, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons- Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to the appeal.

3. While deciding the issue as to whether the accused persons had molested the minor victim and had committed sexual assault on her, the trial Court referred to the statements of the informant (PW-1) and the victim (PW-2).

4. The informant, who is uncle of the victim, stated that on the date of the incident the victim was alone in her house, he was there to guard the house of the victim, the victim had gone out alone to attend the call of nature but he had not seen the victim going out of the house as he was asleep, he had gone running to the victim upon hearing the hue and cry raised by her, the opposite party No.2- Rinkesh Yadav was present there in a field of churry and no other person was present there. Besides him, Raman Manohar had also ran towards the place of the incident. Several other persons were present there but she does not know their names. He had dialed 100, police had come and taken away Rinkesh (the opposite party No.2).

5. The victim (PW-2) stated that in the night of the incident, her sister and two younger brothers were present in her house, all of them had their meals at 2 A378D No. 139 of 2025 about 7:00 PM, her siblings went to sleep and she was awake. She had gone to a field, two boys were coming on foot along with a bicycle, she stood up, both of them asked her about the way to the house of Arjun, she stated that she cannot tell the way and they should ask someone else whereupon both the boys molested her, beat her up and abused her.

6. During cross-examination, the victim stated that she had sat for attending the call of nature at a place that is about 40-50 steps away from the chak road, both the accused persons had come to her to ask the way to the house of Arjun, it was a dark night and she could not see their faces. The accused person had beaten her and she had suffered injuries on the entire body.

7. The trial Court held that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had alleged that the accused persons had caught hold of her hands, gagged her mouth with a cloth and pressed her breast whereas this allegation has not been leveled during her examination before the trial Court. The allegation of shouting while her mouth was gagged with a cloth, is unbelievable. There is no allegation of penetrative sexual assault and, therefore, no offence under Section 8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act is made out. There is no allegation that the offence was committed because of the caste of the victim and, therefore, no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out.

8. The trial Court has held that prosecution has failed to establish the allegations against the accused persons.

9. The learned AGA has submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has categorically levelled the allegation of sexual assault.

10. A bare perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that the trial Court has referred to the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and has held that the allegations leveled in that statement have not been leveled in the statement of the victim recorded before the trial Court. When the victim has refrained from leveling the allegations contained in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. would lose significance.

11. One of the grounds taken in the appeal is that the trial Court has disbelieved the version of the victim because there was no independent witness whereas the law is that conviction can be based on the solitary statement of the victim even in absence of any independent witness. This submission is misconceived as the trial Court has not disbelieved the prosecution case on the ground of absence of any independent witness rather has disbelieved it on the ground of discrepancies in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and before the trial Court as also the discrepancies in the statement of the victim and the informant. 3 A378D No. 139 of 2025

12. The trial Court has discussed the entire relevant material available on record and the learned AGA could not make out any perversity in the judgment of the trial Court.

13. In these circumstances, there is no good ground to grant leave to the State to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act (II)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ayodhya.

14. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to file appeal is hereby rejected. (Order on delay condonation application)

1. As this Court has rejected the application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act (II)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ayodhya, there is no occasion for issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

2. Let the delay condonation application be consigned to records. (Order on Appeal)

1. As this Court has rejected the application seeking leave to file Appeal, let the appeal be consigned to records. September 24, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)